Religion Alone

[bobhikes]

It is interesting to think about the role of responsibility in the practicing of religion by oneself or in a group. @Brickjectivity mentioned in a later response that they feel it is easier to be a loner, but when I think about the issue of responsibility in particular, it is hard to view it that way. If you are doing things by yourself, that's taking on a huge responsibility. And a lot of work. You can't delegate tasks to others, you have to do all of it on your own. If you don't do something with your religion, nothing happens with it - nobody is there to pick up you slacking off. To me, that makes solitary paths much more rigorous and challenging than having a group to lean on for support. You have to be very self-motivated to keep it going, as nobody is there to mind yourself for you.

For me I would agree the solitary path is more rigorous because responsibility causes me great stress but for others the group path is much worse because tolerance causes them great stress. In a group you have to be tolerant to the groups decisions (challenging at times) and tolerant to the individual personalities (extremely challenging at times). I am more tolerant of others than I am myself so I see groups as easier.

 

[Heim]

I seek Christ all by myself. Although I have been contemplating attending the local International Protestant Church. They seem like a progressive bunch. I can see the beauty in celebrating God's love together.

 

[Shiranui117]

Religion is often defined as being a communal or community affair. We come to this understanding in large part because of the prevailing religions of Western culture. In these same prevailing religions, authority tends to be vested externally in figures such as prophets, texts, and priests. The role of individual exploration is downplayed, and perhaps discouraged. In spite of this, the notion of "religion alone" can still be found in Western religious traditions and is particularly prevalent in new or progressive religious movements.

What do you think about the idea of solitary religion, or religion alone? Is the religious path you identify with characterized by community participation, or by what you do on your own? What is the role of solitary work within your religious tradition, if any? What are the benefits of practicing religion alone, versus practicing religion with other people?

I think a religion should be balanced between individual and communal aspects. If a religion is purely communal, then individual growth can be lacking, as they have no room to break out and explore. However, a purely solitary religion has far fewer effective accountability measures, and it is easy for one to deviate from the path of spiritual progress and discipline (however you want to define those).

I'm currently at a point in my life where I'm only comfortable practicing my religion on a solitary basis, since my own beliefs still remain in a state of flux. It is difficult to attach myself to a community with hard and fast standards as to what they believe when my own beliefs are still very much in doubt and subject to change. So in my case, I find many advantages to solitary religion in my life right now--it affords me space and time to work things through.

But, I do find community support to be immensely helpful at other times. It helps to have people that you can talk to about problems in your spirituality. Someone to have as a sounding board, tell you the things you're too scared to tell yourself. Practicing your religion in a community setting can uplift you, boost your morale, and give you renewed energy to go out and continue practicing your religion on your own. No man is an island, as they say. You can learn from others, and also teach others. You can bounce ideas off of each other, and just enjoy human company with people on the same path as you. Group ritual and community worship is beautiful, and has a completely different feel from solitary ritual.

 

[Seven headed beast]

Religion before the church madecits power grab in the fourth and fifth centuries was a very personal affair, between a man and his God. There were no Churches full of pews, and everyone came in together was something that the church started to create a psychological competition. There was originally just an offering box in a dark corner of the temple.

After the council of Nicea framed the bible the temples became churches and the big open collection plates initiated the competition by the open collection of the offerings. No one wanted to be seen as giving none, but many wanted to be seen as giving the most.

Prior to that, you went to the temple and worshipped on your own time, in your own way, this is actually far closer to what the Old Man prefers.

The church drove a wedge between us and Him. They saw it was in their best interest to do so.

Thing is that the Old Man had many friends who would just chat Him up. After the church inserted themselves as the middleman of our spirituality they distanced Him from all of us.

No one calls to just ask "how was your day?"any more. No one wishes Him happy birthday or merry Christmas.

He is a patient Individual, and knows that we will be back, eventually.

But, in the meantime, He misses the interaction with others. He said still more man than you understand and no man is a solitary creature. We are social animals.

So, if you understand that He is listening when we speak to Him, than it is not really a solitary or singular notion. It's you and Him.

 

[BSM1]

I know you took me to task in another thread, but I have to ask. Doesn't a "religion" have to have a name? Doesn't this make it different from a personal spiritual affirmation? And for a "religion" to exist wouldn't it need adherents? I still feel a singularity in relation to God cannot be called a "religion". Okay, skewer me.

 

[Quintessence]

I know you took me to task in another thread, but I have to ask. Doesn't a "religion" have to have a name? Doesn't this make it different from a personal spiritual affirmation? And for a "religion" to exist wouldn't it need adherents? I still feel a singularity in relation to God cannot be called a "religion". Okay, skewer me.

I'm not allowed to skewer you in a non-debate forum.
(not really my style anyway - much better to slice things into bite-size pieces for a flavorful stir fry)

There are many different perspectives on these questions. Defining "religion" is no simple task, and one that the scholars in the field contend over to this day. This thread is mostly about the role of solitary religious practice, somewhat irrespective of whether or not we consider that to be a "religion of one" so to speak. That said, it's been my impression that irrespective of someone identifying with a "religion of many," they have a "religion of one" since the experience of religion is inherently personal and unique to that individual. It kinda becomes a "how do we want to map the territory" sort of question, the answer to which is "whatever way you want." There's not a right answer, IMO.

Some religious demographics emphasize the "religion of one" aspects more than others, though. Contemporary Paganisms definitely do, and solitary practice is a mainstay. It's not uncommon for us to think about each person's path as their unique religion, so to speak. I know I think that way.

 

[BSM1]

I'm not allowed to skewer you in a non-debate forum.
(not really my style anyway - much better to slice things into bite-size pieces for a flavorful stir fry)

There are many different perspectives on these questions. Defining "religion" is no simple task, and one that the scholars in the field contend over to this day. This thread is mostly about the role of solitary religious practice, somewhat irrespective of whether or not we consider that to be a "religion of one" so to speak. That said, it's been my impression that irrespective of someone identifying with a "religion of many," they have a "religion of one" since the experience of religion is inherently personal and unique to that individual. It kinda becomes a "how do we want to map the territory" sort of question, the answer to which is "whatever way you want." There's not a right answer, IMO.

Some religious demographics emphasize the "religion of one" aspects more than others, though. Contemporary Paganisms definitely do, and solitary practice is a mainstay. It's not uncommon for us to think about each person's path as their unique religion, so to speak. I know I think that way.

I think the fly in the ointment is our different perspectives on the concept of "religion". I see religion as a more restrictive and structured entity; rules, regulations, ceremony, etc. However, I can see a "religion of one" as more of a free form spiritual endeavor not needing nor asking for validation from any other. But if you practice a defined routine with preset parameters then you are, IMHO, just saying to the world, "Hey, look how good I am". Other than that we may have acres of common ground.

 

[Quintessence]

I think the fly in the ointment is our different perspectives on the concept of "religion". I see religion as a more restrictive and structured entity; rules, regulations, ceremony, etc.

That's fair. I thought along those lines... until I experienced things like Unitarian Universalism, progressive (non-denominational) Christianity, New Agers, and contemporary Paganism.

 

[BSM1]

That's fair. I thought along those lines... until I experienced things like Unitarian Universalism, progressive (non-denominational) Christianity, New Agers, and contemporary Paganism.

Still, even though those are fine examples, aren't we still in the realm of "this and not that"? Can a thing that is named not have structure (I know, a sideways Game Of Thrones reference)?

 

[syo]

I'm not very fond of solitary religion. there must be some kind of religious connection with many people.

 

[osgart]

religion alone as a private practice has it's joys and sorrows. but there is no coercion, and with refinement and practice people see a difference in you and sometimes that's good and sometimes not.

religion is a constant work in progress. religion in general is after eternal life, or at least a better experience in this one.

I don't think knowledge alone is fulfilling, often it's constraining. we all take our best attempt at defining and succeeding at true reality.
a soul needs to know itself, and know others. dealing with the heart is very serious work. you don't want to feed it bad information. and you certainly don't want to invite bad experiences.

frankly humanity could use a well conceived religion or two grounded in reality on one foot and aspiring to the divine with the other foot.

 

[LukeS]

For me "religion" is a form of bind, bond or link to the universe / to being. So in that sense we are all religious, otherwise we are dead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For me "religion" is a form of bind, bond or link to the universe / to being. So in that sense we are all religious, otherwise we are dead.

As someome who isn't religious (and very much alive, thanks), I find this co-opting of the term "religious" rather chauvinistic and insulting.

To the OP: a religion is a community of shared belief, but this doesn't mean that a religion is only a religion if it involves groups of people worshipping in the same room together. A solitary practitioner can still be a member of a religion through a shared tradition... but IMO, there's no such thing as a "religion of one." A belief system of one, sure, but not a religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Religion is often defined as being a communal or community affair. We come to this understanding in large part because of the prevailing religions of Western culture. In these same prevailing religions, authority tends to be vested externally in figures such as prophets, texts, and priests. The role of individual exploration is downplayed, and perhaps discouraged. In spite of this, the notion of "religion alone" can still be found in Western religious traditions and is particularly prevalent in new or progressive religious movements.

What do you think about the idea of solitary religion, or religion alone? Is the religious path you identify with characterized by community participation, or by what you do on your own? What is the role of solitary work within your religious tradition, if any? What are the benefits of practicing religion alone, versus practicing religion with other people?

I think both social and self religious practices have advantages and disadvantages so I don't really hold one up to a higher standard than the other.

Imc, I just prefer a solo religious practice with some outside guidance, for no other reason for which I find by doing so, there is a much better benefit to be had through good ole' fashioned trial and error.

A social setting as I see it, tends to be more controlled and specific, helpful at times during some sticky points based on other people's experiences, but a degree of insight could be lost because of that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you think about the idea of solitary religion, or religion alone? Is the religious path you identify with characterized by community participation, or by what you do on your own? What is the role of solitary work within your religious tradition, if any? What are the benefits of practicing religion alone, versus practicing religion with other people?

I don't think a solitary person's individual beliefs substantially meet the definition of a religion. On the flip side, I expect the individual members of any religion actually hold widely varying beliefs, and many of them may be solitary. I think a religion is necessarily a shared system or institution. An individual's beliefs can be of a religious nature, but they don't constitute a religion.

 

[arjuna]

Religion is often defined as being a communal or community affair. We come to this understanding in large part because of the prevailing religions of Western culture. In these same prevailing religions, authority tends to be vested externally in figures such as prophets, texts, and priests. The role of individual exploration is downplayed, and perhaps discouraged. In spite of this, the notion of "religion alone" can still be found in Western religious traditions and is particularly prevalent in new or progressive religious movements.

What do you think about the idea of solitary religion, or religion alone? Is the religious path you identify with characterized by community participation, or by what you do on your own? What is the role of solitary work within your religious tradition, if any? What are the benefits of practicing religion alone, versus practicing religion with other people?

That is a very beautiful question.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Religion is often defined as being a communal or community affair. We come to this understanding in large part because of the prevailing religions of Western culture. In these same prevailing religions, authority tends to be vested externally in figures such as prophets, texts, and priests. The role of individual exploration is downplayed, and perhaps discouraged. In spite of this, the notion of "religion alone" can still be found in Western religious traditions and is particularly prevalent in new or progressive religious movements.

What do you think about the idea of solitary religion, or religion alone? Is the religious path you identify with characterized by community participation, or by what you do on your own? What is the role of solitary work within your religious tradition, if any? What are the benefits of practicing religion alone, versus practicing religion with other people?

Hi Q,

I feel religion is not a community affair. Like wheat and tares growing in a field all existing together, some people actually are different to others whatever their beliefs.
A religion should never be seen as a 'commodity' or a 'one size fits all', neither is it just a practice. We should never try and fit beliefs into our way of seeing things for others.
A faith should be about receiving all the things the faith promises you. Personally, I believe, that your faith must do as it says on the tin. Either two things prevent this.
1, The faith is not real. 2. You are at fault.

 

[Kapalika]

There's been plenty of ascetics and the like, hermits and monks ect practicing religion alone. I don't think the idea is new or original. Although solidarity is surely on the rise.

 

[sayak83]

Religion is often defined as being a communal or community affair. We come to this understanding in large part because of the prevailing religions of Western culture. In these same prevailing religions, authority tends to be vested externally in figures such as prophets, texts, and priests. The role of individual exploration is downplayed, and perhaps discouraged. In spite of this, the notion of "religion alone" can still be found in Western religious traditions and is particularly prevalent in new or progressive religious movements.

What do you think about the idea of solitary religion, or religion alone? Is the religious path you identify with characterized by community participation, or by what you do on your own? What is the role of solitary work within your religious tradition, if any? What are the benefits of practicing religion alone, versus practicing religion with other people?

As a Hindu, both individual practice (prayer, meditation, yoga) and community participation (religious festivals and gatherings) are important. The emphasis is based on individual preference...from renunciates who spend 20 years or more meditating alone in mountains to folk who head or organize community religious activities in temples...there is a way for everyone.